There was only one published opinion in the Ninth Circuit, California Supreme Court, and California Court of Appeal today. And even that one wasn't all that doctrinally interesting.
That said, one person definitely cared deeply about that sole opinion: Francis Casildo.
Mr. Casildo is what a normal person might call a "long-time drug dealer," though we in the legal world prefer "career criminal." He has a 2006 drug conviction in Nevada and a 2011 federal conviction for distribution of cocaine. So when the jury convicted him in of distributing methamphetamine, that was his third strike. Which means a big jump in the sentencing guidelines range.
The judge ultimately sentenced Mr. Casildo to a little over 19 and a half years in prison. But expressly did so because the three drug strikes made Mr. Casildo a career criminal under the guidelines. At sentencing, the judge said:
"The guideline range is properly calculated at 262 to 327 months, and as we discussed earlier, that was driven almost completely by the fact that Mr. Casildo is regarded as a career offender, having had two prior drug trafficking convictions. And I think that essentially says it all. Were it not for those two prior convictions or if there had only been one prior drug conviction, we would be talking about a very, very different case, a very, very different sentence, probably something on the order of what Mr. Requena received, maybe even less."
After an unsuccessful appeal, Mr. Casildo filed a motion to vacate his sentence. The district court denied the motion, but the Ninth Circuit reverses, holding that his attorney, who had been instructed by Mr. Casildo to oppose the career services finding, deficiently failed to do so: "We hold that there was cause for, and prejudice resulting from, Casildo’s procedural default, and that his failure to raise his claim on direct appeal may therefore be excused. On the merits, we hold that Casildo’s conviction under § 453.321(1)(a) is not a controlled substance offense under § 4B1.1(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings."
It's not like Mr. Casildo is going to get out of prison any time soon. But he's nonetheless likely looking at trimming off a non-trivial portion of this just-under-two-decade sentence.
And it's March 31, not April 1, so it's not an April Fool's Day joke either.
